No, she didn't care about picture quality. The 650D could have produced images half as good as the Nikon but the touch screen, well that's just like new phone that has a touch screen and "iPad" that has a touch screen, so why would anyone want one of those prehistoric things with knobs and stuff?

Has DxOMark quantified that the Canon images are only 50% as good as the Nikon?

You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)

All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.

Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?

You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)

All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.

Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?[/quote

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles. When the reason for choosing a 650D over something else is the touch screen, then as long as the camera has enough pixels for facebook and WiFi to upload, well who cares about PASM, etc?

Ok, so you had poor service. I'm sorry that happenned, but that's not exclusive to Canon.

Personally, I welcome improvements to IQ and DR, as I'm sure many here do. The bells and whistles don't interest me either, but I accept that in todays social networking culture they will interest many, and Canon is going where it thinks the money is. That's business.

No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.

There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.

The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.

In a sense? No need for a qualifier there. As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors. Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves. Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly. The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor).

Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization. The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor. It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap. If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms.

True. But Roger Cicala's repair data indicate an average (in the USA) of 6 days for Canon vs. 26 days for Nikon. Or, since you seem to like percentages, 433% longer for a Nikon repair in the US, on average.

Or in other words, Canon seems to be ignoring the photographer and going for the consumer (which kind of agrees with your statement above.)

Oh, I see. Consumers don't care about IQ, but Photographers do, so they should all be using Nikon. Wait, did I say that? Somehow, I don't think so...

If you think Nikon has better sensor DR because they aren't 'ignoring the photographer', you're being terribly naive. Canon and Nikon are publically traded companies. Neither of them 'care about photographers' except insofar as photographers are consumers that buy their products. Canon and Nikon care about profit. In some countries (the US being one), it goes beyond caring - publically held compaines are legally obligated to maximize profit. Canon just seems to be doing a better job at that, based on corporate reports.

It's not that it is poor but rather that there has been no improvement and it isn't as if there are no problems that need fixing.

No, there are problems that you want fixed (and so do I, admittedly). Important distinction. But they can clearly outsell Nikon despite those 'problems' so the only voice that matters - the market - has decided there no need to fix anything.

Nikon is approaching the problem of maximising profit by providing products that give maximum benefit to the photographer that cares about the quality of their photograph in the belief that this is the #1 priority for camera purchases.

See, I just knew there was a reason for the oil spatters on the D600 sensor. Nikon cares about the quality of the photographs.

Tell me...does that strategy apply to their lenses, too? If so, why is a Sigma lens an oh-so-significant 2% better? I suppose because Nikon tried but failed.

You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)

All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.

Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles. When the reason for choosing a 650D over something else is the touch screen, then as long as the camera has enough pixels for facebook and WiFi to upload, well who cares about PASM, etc?

At the entry level, that is probably true, since the IQ is good enough for what most people want to do with it. However even at the enthusiast level, the differences in the so-called "IQ" of these cameras aren’t sufficiently different to matter as much as the differences in the overall systems. Or, for that matter, the cost of changing systems or the inconvenience of adding a Nikon body and lens kit to a Canon system just to get 6 dB additional SNR in the deepest shadows and then ONLY if your gain is set at ISO=100.

I recently changed out my 5DII for a 5DIII with full knowledge (having participated in these threads for years) of the so-called "IQ" differences, what they stem from and what they mean to real world camera performance for the sorts of things I generally do. It would have cost me $10k to add a D800 and a couple of “L” equivalent Nikon lenses good enough to make good use of all its capabilities. Similarly it would have cost me around $15k to change systems (leaving the Devil I know for the Devil I don’t so-to-speak). So... I am going to do that for 6 dB more SNR at ISO 100 and 15 more MP (along with larger files, slower frame rate etc.)? It doesn’t even make sense. I don’t think that I am alone in this perspective, even at what seems to be an elevated price, the 5DIII (despite its mostly imagined IQ deficiencies) seems to be selling quite well (particularly now that the street price seems to have dropped).

No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.

There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.

The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.

In a sense? No need for a qualifier there. As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors. Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves. Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly. The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor).

Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization. The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor. It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap. If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms.

"The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor."

I absolutely agree and this is the primary reason that I jump into these discussions. IMO those who make these sorts of comments are either clueless, have some sort of personal agenda to grind or… they just haven’t figured out how to use a camera yet.

I have no issue with someone commenting that the Canon Read Noise is worse or the Sony/Nikon DR is better (or the resolution is better one way or the other if that is your hot-button) but this broad generalization that somehow Canon Image Quality is worse in some sort of general sense is utter nonsense, it generates unnecessary FUD which has no place whatsoever on a forum where people hopefully want to get to the facts to make educated decisions (or just understand how the damn thing works). It is my opinion that in the general sense of the mostly undefined concept of “IQ” most current cameras are pretty much equal.

David, I have compared 5dmk2 with 5dmk3 (and so have others) and what do you think about the high iso reproduction.I took this pictures few minutes ago, and it is 5dmk2 12800iso and d800what has impressed me is the d800 high iso reproductionWhen the 5dmk3 came out I did a lot of comparison and did not se any big advantage regarding high iso compared to 5dmk2 , what I saw was something who looks like pre cocked 5dmk3 raw files compared to 5dmk2 with less visual noise but not more details .here is 12800 iso and both cameras metering system gave the same value time and f-stop and they are exposed the same= 1/640sec F1,4 and handled in CR the same= high lights information and shadows details, the d800 file are downsized to 5dmk2

What is the point of downsizing? I think that your test is biased in favor of the Nikon since downsizing will make the noise look better. The problem with Nikon for me is that they came along with too little, too late. If they had had the best camera when I bought the 20D 8 years ago, I would be a Nikon shooter but they did not.

As for what do I think about your test? The Nikon image looks better, but I know nothing about what that means in the real world, how big are you going to print the image, what is it used for, am I allowed to make that same image at ISO 100 using a tripod with the 5DII, etc., etc.? This is yet another example of a contrived test, purpose built to make the tester’s point. I could take that same 5DII, change the settings, put it on a tripod if need be and make an image that would blow your D800 image out of the water. You could do the same with the D800 and get a better image as well. In the end when both cameras were optimally used, the images would probably be indistinguishable. IMO, there is nothing about this image that requires a D800.

Its not surprising really, it seems to be happening to a couple of threads daily - post underexposed shots, lift shadows by 5 stops, post 100% crops, claim that Canon cameras are shiite and the regular blah blah blah blah!

Hi there,I am new on the forum and actually, this discussion kind of summarize my current dilemma. Indeed, I want to acquire my first digital DLSR. I am kind of an enthusiastic user, still quite naive, planning to take lessons, I like to shoot animals (birds, insects and... my kids ), etc.As a kind of a geek, and with a budget around 3k$ (for body + lenses), what should I go for ? Long ago I had a Canon, so my first idea was to go for Canon. Then, the Nikon D7100 impressed me a lot, with many interesting features. On the other hand, I plan to buy nice gears little by little and Canon's seem better.At my level, I think that the sensor matters little, it will probably outperform what I need and the gears I will buy initially. Solidity is important. Some features of the D7100 seem ideal for birds, etc (AF, crop factor, speed of shutter, high ISO quality). From what is announced, Canon novelties will either not provide the same built as the D7100 (70D) or will be much more expensive (7DII). I plan to buy my camera at the end of the year, hence I will have time to see what happen until then. But if I had to decide today, I would probably go for D7100 since it is approximately the same price as 7D, but more recent and with some interesting features.

So I was wondering if you experts think that my thinking is correct or not (and yes, I know that a D7100 or 7D is probably too much for me, but they are appealing to me !).I am also curious about your opinion on this matter: is Canon loosing some new potential enthusiastic clients by not improving enough their camera ?